A few possibilities exist (not mutually exclusive), I think, to explain these two-errors-for-the-price-of-one:

1) The writers are inventing things willy-nilly.

2) The writers don't care about following Star Trek lore

Click to expand...

Oh dear.

All because of a slight mix-up of terminology when the rest of both films are FILLED with references, easter eggs and homages that should more than satisfy Trek fans.

Nerd rage certainly is funny to watch.

Click to expand...

LOL.

I was actually laughing as I typed my former post -- well, almost.

It *is* very pedantic, I'll give you that. And there may be a small measure of nerd rage there, too.

The thing is though, this is merely one issue amongst hundreds. It's a small one, yes, and if it were the only one, or one in a handful of gaffes, it might not warrant much comment, but -- in my opinion -- it isn't.

Also, we're all bloody nerds here, or we should be. "Trek lore" was perhaps the wrong term; "Trek minutiae" might be better (though, basic ship elements and layout, such as a ship typically having two nacelles -- one port, one starboard -- seem like Trek 101 to me).

I agree with Cryogenic. If you say 'port nacelle' when you mean 'starboard nacelle', that's a mistake. 'located behind the aft nacelle' is... I dunno what. But those sorts of maddening errors that seem less like simple mistakes and more like lazy technobabble from writers who don't care are the antimatter that fuels our collective nerd-rage. And that's why we're here. Stuff like that just shouldn't happen. I think I'll head down to engineering for a beer.

Well, even if life support were cut off, woudln't there still be enough time to kill Khan's 72 followers? Losing life support usually didn't result in immediate suffocation. Plus, there are space suits and shuttle aboard.

There can't be an "impulse nacelle," nacelle means separate enclosure.

Click to expand...

Which, if the impulse engine is housed in an armored compartment inside of the saucer section, would still qualify.

Click to expand...

Not really. A nacelle is, by definition, a feature external (as a pod or gondola) to the main body to which it is attached.

Click to expand...

Yes, like the engine Nacelles on the F-14 Tomcat, which are partially embedded in the fuselage and partially exposed.

Like this structure on the spine of the saucer section. A similar feature exists on the TOS Enterprise, yet to this day we have never really come up with terminology to describe it. "Aft nacelle" fits as well as anything else.

Well, even if life support were cut off, woudln't there still be enough time to kill Khan's 72 followers? Losing life support usually didn't result in immediate suffocation. Plus, there are space suits and shuttle aboard.

A similar feature exists on the TOS Enterprise, yet to this day we have never really come up with terminology to describe it. "Aft nacelle" fits as well as anything else.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Nacelle is not a Star Trek creation, it's a real word that actually means something. Even if "behind the aft nacelle" made some kind of sense, it would be open space, not something aboard the ship.

Good Lord, people. I think it's pretty obvious what happened. The writers needed a technobabble word, so they plugged "nacelle" in there. If they'd used "deflector", "power coupling" or "plasma conduit" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

If they'd used "deflector", "power coupling" or "plasma conduit" we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Oh, who am I kidding? Of course we would.

Click to expand...

You're probably right. This particular example is still pretty damn sad because you don't need a copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia to know it's BS, you only need a dictionary. One would expect better when the writers have three years to craft a coherent screenplay.

You're probably right. This particular example is still pretty damn sad because you don't need a copy of the Star Trek Encyclopedia to know it's BS, you only need a dictionary. One would expect better when the writers have three years to craft a coherent screenplay.

Click to expand...

And they did. They're human, they will slip up every now and then. Not worth getting the pitch forks out over "aft nacelles." Seriously there have to be more important things in life to get upset about.

Definitely. The whole screenplay is littered with laziness, this is just one of the more minor examples... pretty sad for a movie with a nearly $200 million dollar production budget.

Click to expand...

They made a similar mistake in their 2009 crapfest:

At the 46-minute mark in ST09, Pike issues the following instruction:

"Divert auxiliary power from port nacelles to forward shields."

So, fans attempting to rationalize this new error are faced with an additional problem: if there is, indeed, an "aft nacelle" of some kind, separate to the massive warp engines that the word "nacelle" has traditionally, in ST lore, referred to, why are there "port nacelles", plural; or, put the other way, why is there only one "aft nacelle", as implied in Khan's threat, while multiple nacelles, per Pike's order in the 2009 film, reside at "port"? Seems a little unbalanced and unsatisfying to me.

* * *

A few possibilities exist (not mutually exclusive), I think, to explain these two-errors-for-the-price-of-one:

1) The writers are inventing things willy-nilly.

2) The writers don't care about following Star Trek lore or about being accurate or coherent.

3) The writers are actively trying to dismantle Star Trek lore and thumb their noses at accuracy and coherence.

4) The writers are incompetent and care more about a paycheck than creating something innovative, layered, thoughtful, and lasting; or they, for some indiscernible reason, believe that these latter qualities can be created independently of the former (accuracy and coherence).

Classic Trek was about people who consulted science experts to stay current with the latest developments. They were creating science fiction shows. They wrote technical manuals and blueprints. Focus groups were rarely involved.

New Trek is about people who create stories that meet an international demand for action-adventure stories. The stories have less Trek, and more excitement. Everything is hyper now. They are creating science fantasy. These people aren't creating technical manuals nor blueprints, nor are they encouraging efforts to explain the science in these films. And, the movies are now focus group. (Please don't call bull on that. There are articles out there about Paramount speaking to groups on what they wanted to see in the next film. If I can Google this, so can you.)

Well, this is what I got from watching Plinkett's review of Star Trek (2009) and my own observations.

There is a remarkable sequence in his review that shows the difference between the two.

In "By Any Other Name", we see an elevator ride where three of the characters are talking about plans to sabotage the Enterprise. Plinkett demonstrates the path of this elevator through the starship - the MSD, first shown in the series "Enterprise" - matches up with the motion of the elevator. it's extraordinary to the lengths that people on the Classic Trek went to creating a believable world.

Now, look at the first JJ Abrams film. Spock gets on a turbolift near the main shuttlebay, and arrives at the bridge in seconds. The key word is fluidity.

Hell, there is a homage within this movie to a Star Wars film. When they say "Punch It", this is a homage to one of the characters in SW saying the same exact thing. And, when Kirk is seeing the Enterprise for the first time, the people involved with the film called it the "Tatooine moment".

I have accepted and I am resigned to the fact that the people involved in New Trek are not the same as the people in Classic Trek. They saw, I believe, these two films as a shakedown cruise for the next Star Wars film.

Here is Plinkett review of Star Trek (2009). I have found it very enlightening.